Climate Bill Passes in the House, Moves on to Senate

By Allison Bond | June 29, 2009 6:13 pm

wind turbineIn a 219-212 vote, the House of Representatives passed on Friday a climate bill designed to decrease U.S. dependence on oil and create “green” jobs. It’s now up to the Senate to pass or veto the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which also proposes a cap-and-trade system to impose historic limits on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill has been tweaked since it was approved in May by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and it remains unclear how much progress the Senate will make on the bill. In it, U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would be reduced 17 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. That is less ambitious than the 20 percent initially sought, but slightly more aggressive than the approximately 15 percent Obama proposed. The legislation sets further pollution reduction goals — 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050, with the latter just slightly higher than Obama suggested [Reuters]. The bill also speeds up the administration of $346 million in stimulus funds for the development and implementation of energy efficient technology.

The bill aims to use economics to transition the U.S. to renewable energy. Under the cap-and-trade system, factories and power plants that burn fossil fuels will be allotted a certain amount of permits for greenhouse gas emissions. If a factory goes over its limit, it will have to buy additional permits. By making burning coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels more expensive, the legislation will make renewable energy sources like wind and solar power more attractive [Wired.com].

Democrats and Republicans disagree about how much this change will cost Americans. Republican opponents have claimed $3,100 or more per household annually in higher prices for energy and other goods. Conversely, some supporters have said it will save consumers money as energy efficiencies are achieved. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an average cost of $175 annually for households. It said the poor would enjoy a $40-a-year benefit from rebates and other aid [Reuters]. And according to Obama, the bill will save the nation cash and energy overall: between 2012 and 2042, his proposals would save four billion dollars a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars each year [AFP].

When discussing the bill and U.S. energy policy on Monday, June 29, Obama touted the importance of taking seemingly small steps to make a big difference in overall energy consumption. He also announced that to save energy, he would switch to energy-efficient light bulbs in the White House. “Now, I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because seven percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses,” Obama said [AFP].

Related Content:
80beats: DoE Tosses Tesla a $465 Million Loan to Make Mass-Market Electric Cars
80beats: Obama’s Orders: Detroit Must Build Fuel-Efficient Cars—Starting Now
80beats: Obama Agrees With Bush: Polar Bears Won’t Drive Global Warming Policy
80beats: Obama Moves to Undo Bush-Era Environmental Policies

Image: flickr / caveman92223

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment
  • brotim

    Quote:”In a 219-212 vote, the House of Representatives passed on Friday a climate bill designed to decrease U.S. independence on oil and create “green” jobs.”

    MeNow: Perhaps that’s s’posed to be to decrease U.S. “dependence” on oil.

    ;-)

    Interesting tactic, that; making current fuels cost more rather than seeking to make alternatives cheaper…

  • Caleb

    This administration scares me to death. We are in an economic mess and here they are trying to push us off the cliff with this irresponsible bill. The fact that house members didn’t even have time to read it before voting is even more disturbing.

    -Caleb

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/ Eliza Strickland

    brotim — um, whoops. Thanks for catching the typo. It’s fixed.

  • magill

    It would have been nice if the bill included a clause that would prevent energy companies to raise prices for consummers. I think that would have been a nice addition to shut up the republicans.

  • Listo

    I just think back to when gasoline went up to $4 a gallon. What were we told? “Drive less.” So if energy costs go up, then I guess we need to use less energy.

    I don’t mind paying an extra $200 a year if it means that we reduce our reliance on foreign oil. I do have a beef with those that still resist nuclear power as an option.

  • Gordon Gilmore

    Magill..shut up. The purpose of the bill is to raise energy prices. And
    Listo, do you think it would stop at $200.00, get real. People start thinking for yourselves. Caleb is right, 7 people have sent this toilet
    paper to the Senate, where I hope brighter mines will put the paper in
    the circle file where it belongs. The two who wrote the bill are playing
    the game Obama wants, Cap & Trade. I hope you that voted for Obama have
    deep pockets to pay for what he want, I dont.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

80beats

80beats is DISCOVER's news aggregator, weaving together the choicest tidbits from the best articles covering the day's most compelling topics.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »